As for OP's question (which *IS* a welcome relief from some of the recent stuff), I agree that we're all tabula rasa.

I feel that biology has given us imperatives that most would consider to be "selfish" and possibly evil, and that society as a whole attempts to balance this out. I think that whether an individual is "good" or "evil" can depend both on how well that individual adhere's to social programming, as well as the values of that society. Some societies are (objectively?) more moral than others.

Once food, and shelter are met. Most people (50%+1, I'd say probably in the 90%+ range) are generally good, and don't like hurting other people. However sexual needs not being met can make many people pretty violent.

Will that person forcefully meet their sexual needs, or negotiate for it somehow (marriage/exchange of goods)?

This is definitely an interesting topic. I don't think that the theory of humans being born tabula rasa holds any water though. External forces apply to life and force maturity in a variety of different ways, the most common being in a selfish direction. I think Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene" makes a powerful case for this, arguing that there are certainly some reasons for us to work against the selfishness of our genes but that these reasons are not built into us. This kind of "proclivity to evil", in the most crude sense of the word, is carved into our very DNA and it does affect cognitive functions which in turn shape the reality of how we perceive our world. Our bodies and minds are genetically predisposed to behave in a selfish manner.

I have wondered whether this would have been the case if utopia existed since the conception of the universe, but even if this was the case then the pressure to be and do "good" would be the force that exerted pressure on humanity. The freedom to choose has been the deciding factor when it comes to matters like these. Let's say we remove societal pressure to conform and be "good". Why do people who live enviable lives, lives where so little has gone wrong still have the temptation to do bad things? Why is it that our thoughts can stray down dark paths and venture into the very pit of hell itself if we allow them to? Doing "good" or the right things seem to be much more difficult than engaging destructive tendencies and behaviour. Something as innocuous as smoking or drinking alcohol. These are not what most people would describe as "good" tendencies. We all know that smoking and drinking harm our health. It certainly does nothing to improve it and there are better methods to reduce stress, or alternative beverages that do less harm to your body. To indulge in vices seems to be something that we as a species very much enjoy. Whether it harms others or just yourself is not really the issue. Even if it is almost negligible. The fact of the matter is that we still tend to engage in them and enjoy them. Then there is the issue of goodness itself. This is arguably one of the most difficult things to wrap your mind around. I can understand a religious person having a standard of what is good since they believe in a higher power and their metric of what is right and wrong, or good and bad stem from that belief. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. They still have a logical reason to believe it. I think this whole issue ties into philosophy a lot more than it does politics. The problem I have is when materialists try to argue something like this. Some will cede that there is truly no concept of what is good or bad but some will state that there is an objective standard of good and I can't see where they would get it. Even Sam Harris, who I think is a brilliant mind, doesn't defend the position well in my estimation. From what I can see most people tend to import the Judaeo-Christian world view into their positions even when trying to defend such a claim. But I don't see how anything can be "good" or "bad" if you don't have a higher standard to compare it to. If you do not know what the "best" and worst are are, for a religious person their standard would be derived from what their God claims, then how can you possibly know whether something is even good or bad?

Anyway, that's just a bit of me rambling on. I didn't particularly collect my thoughts when writing this and just wrote down what came to mind in the moment. Looking forward to reading some others thoughts on this

This is definitely an interesting topic. I don't think that the theory of humans being born tabula rasa holds any water though. External forces apply to life and force maturity in a variety of different ways, the most common being in a selfish direction. I think Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene" makes a powerful case for this, arguing that there are certainly some reasons for us to work against the selfishness of our genes but that these reasons are not built into us. This kind of "proclivity to evil", in the most crude sense of the word, is carved into our very DNA and it does affect cognitive functions which in turn shape the reality of how we perceive our world. Our bodies and minds are genetically predisposed to behave in a selfish manner.

I didn't want to fill up the whole thread, so I shortened your post.

I believe Darwin grossly oversimplified many things, including the belief that our genes are selfish and made a false inference that we're inherently evil (don't know if it's you or Darwin who made this inference.). There's nothing evil about our genes and instincts wanting the best for ourselves, every organism on Earth behaves this way. We would've slowly become extinct if we didn't want the best for ourselves, particularly when it comes to a mate.

I've asserted that animals function off instinct, they have no free will. Only a species which is able to control it's instinct can boast to have free will and no species, save humans, is capable of doing this. So, I'll state that only humans can be capable of good or evil. Now, are we born good or evil? No. Being good or evil comes down to choice, you become good or evil based on your own free will, you may have the instinctual drive (at the level of the Id) to want to do terrible things, but you also have free will to control and manage those instincts. Saying we're inherently Good or Evil at birth makes no sense as we've yet to exercise or understand choice, we're simply functioning off instinct at that point.

Like ants, humans figured out pretty early on that unless we function as a society, we wouldn't survive long and it's easy to make the case that our morals of Good and Evil can find their roots in some kind of prehistoric HR to make sure the early crude societies of humans were able to function with some semblance of cohesion. However, it's also just as easy to argue that it's not so ridiculous that among every variety of species on this Earth, we're the only ones endowed with free will and coincidentally, the understanding of right and wrong.

Ultimately, I truly believe it's impossible for people who believe in God and an afterlife and those who don't to find significant common ground in this argument. The premise for which we argue our points are built on the foundations of our beliefs; did God reveal the virtues and sins or did we create them ourselves?

I don't think it has much of an impact whether someone believes in a higher power or not, at least for the purposes of this discussion and their ability to determine good and bad. Now it might affect their world view and thus they may fundamentally be at odds with non-believers but its likely whatever system he uses for determining good and evil is no more or less rational and arbitrary than any other random person, including yourself.

« Last Edit: December 11, 2018, 07:48:56 AM by kyndo »

Logged

sligo

I don't think it has much of an impact whether someone believes in a higher power or not, at least for the purposes of this discussion and their ability to determine good and bad. Now it might affect their world view and thus they may fundamentally be at odds with non-believers but its likely whatever system he uses for determining good and evil is no more or less rational and arbitrary than any other random person, including yourself.

Quite the opposite. If he believes there is value in a system, no matter how abhorrent it may seem, then this may lead the individual to alter instincts to fit the ideas that they are confronted with. There is little rational to justifying a view with: "this is what i am told to believe" rather than "this is what my instincts say".

He actually stated that he bases his judgement of good and bad on a book written thousands of years ago, and contains acts, that if an individual carried out today (as i mentioned in my previous post) would receive scorn and condemnation as "evil" by rank and file society.

Quote

That's what God says, so who am I to argue? Case closed

Most of the bible stories, if happened today, would be disregarded as mental illness, or genocide. If the acts wouldn't be acceptable today, why centre you beliefs in them? I mean, if a guy said he based his entire moral code in what a burning bush said to him, you would either call the men in white coats, or ask for his dealer's number!

As others have said, the definitions of "good" and "evil" are cultural.

Examples:

In western culture, incest is considered one the most "evil" of crimes, but in some African cultures, it is a parent's duty to sexually "train" their children.

Suicide is cowardly in the west - a "mortal sin" in some sects of Christianity, but honorable in east Asia.

Fundamentally, I think we are all self-interested. We do things to make our lives (and that of our children) better. We need to follow the rules (to some extent) to do this - killing a rival will more likely ensure jail time than a promotion!